On June 26, the Karnataka High Court refused to quash proceedings against Congress leader and former Karnataka Minister MR Seetharam for allegedly abetting the unaccounted routing of Rs 50 lakh. The court’s single-judge bench, comprising Justice M Nagaprasanna, said that the Congress leader was not able to furnish a satisfactory explanation for quashing the case.
In 2016, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) registered a case against the former Managing Director of Cauvery Neeravari Nigam, TN Chikkarayappa, for possessing assets worth Rs 3.58 crore disproportionate to his known sources of income.
During the investigation, it was found that MS Ramaiah Education Society, of which MR Seetharam was the President, issued a cheque drawn for a sum of Rs 50 lakh in favour of MS Ramaiah Medical College on April 2, 2012. The Society argued that the cheque was issued in favour of Chikkarayappa’s daughter as an interest-free educational loan, as she was not eligible for a scholarship, in response to Lokayukta’s notice dated April 13, 2018.
The Lokayukta issued another notice asking the Society to furnish complete details as to how the amount was paid as an interest-free loan to Chikkarayappa’s daughter. However, the petitioner submitted that the Society had become defunct and no records could be traced. The Lokayukta then completed the investigation and filed a chargesheet.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that while the petitioner signed the cheque as the President of the Society, it was the Society which was responsible for issuing the cheque. Thus, no fault can be found as it is by way of a cheque that the amount was transferred and not cash. The counsel further argued that by the time the second notice was issued, the Society had become defunct and thus records were not traceable. The petitioner sought for quashing the proceedings.
The State’s counsel opposed the prayer seeking to quash the proceedings. The counsel submitted that the cheque was issued from the Society and in favour of the college run by the Society itself. However, nowhere in the books the amount has been reflected. Furthermore, the counsel argued that if the amount were disbursed as an educational loan, then the same would have been reflected in the returns filed by the Society.
“The defence was never that the Society had become defunct when the reply was submitted on 26-04-2018 but when all the details were sought, a new swan song is sought to be sung, by the Society of which the petitioner was the President,” the court said.
The court said, “If he is the signatory as President of the Society, how an amount of `50/- lakhs was routed; why `50/- lakhs was routed and as a special case only the daughter of accused No.1 was chosen to grant educational loan interest free, no satisfactory explanation is furnished.”
The court said, “The cheque for `50/- lakhs which is appended to the petition is drawn in the name of the College with the signature of the petitioner, being the President of the Society. It is, therefore, the ingredients of Section 109 of the IPC would point at the petitioner. The Police after investigation file a charge sheet, when the evasive replies were given by the Society, of which, the petitioner is/was the President.”
“In a given case, if such a case is shrouded with seriously disputed questions of fact, this Court would not interfere in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,” the court said while refusing to quash the case against the Congress leader.
The court concluded, “The petition lacking in merit stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings pending before the concerned Court.”
Comments